OUR New Zealand Party

Names matter a lot. What should be the name of the new Conservative New Zealand political party?

But first we can cancel out existing names. Gone are New Conservatives, National, Labour, Greens, ACT, and Maori.

Trip down memory lane and a few candidates:

New Zealand Party - Started by Bob Jones it contested the 1984 general election and did pretty well but didn't win any seats. In terms of share of the vote it gained 12.25%, which would make it kingmaker today. The name isn't currently registered, the party having fallen apart in the early 1990's. 

How about then: OUR New Zealand Party.

Whatever the name it must be unifying, not divisive. So, out goes One Nation, Libertarian, etc. TOP is not a bad name the more you think about it (as a party can't say what they're like, its policies are too 'pure' in terms of economics to put it in a winnable position).

MMP is a funny beast and I think where all new parties have failed is they go straight for the 5%. A more practical approach is to attract popular local people to stand in seats and try to get in that way, by winning electorates. Think this can't be done? The Maori party have proved this works. Their electorate level campaigning is pretty good for a small party.

Membership: this new entity only works if it can attract 2,000 members. That provides a number in each electorate across the country. Think about covering people away on holiday, sick, etc., you still need to find people to agitate locally. I know 500 is the threshold but that just isn't enough. These members have to be paid up and active.

Policies: central policy planks would be

* written Constitution for NZ with embedded free speech and transparency of government (right to privacy);
* private property protected and pursuit of profit encouraged;
* Defence (what's the point in owning stuff or having free speech if anyone can take it off you);
* Rule of law and equality before the law;
* Right to education and healthcare;
* Build infrastructure (without a strong built environment there is no point in the abovementioned rights);
* Believe that the individual knows what's best for themselves;
* Family, neighbourhood, suburb, village, town, city, country in that order;
* Freedom of religion.

Input welcome.

Please contact me from the contact form over on the right there >>>>>>Thank you.

Getting Greens Below 5% Threshold

New Zealand is saddled with a political party that represents anachronistic political ideologies, a party of wreckers with their snouts in the trough. That party is The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand (I'll just call them Greens). They offer nothing constructive.

How to get rid of these people? The task will not be an easy one but it is achievable. That's because as the decades have passed, voters have grown up and abandoned the Greens. These days they're perpetually below 10%, stuck close to the all-important 5% threshold which would see them exit parliament if absent an electorate. Currently, they have one electorate seat, that of Auckland Central plus nine other members of parliament off the party list.

Who or what are the Greens? They're communists re-branded; red becomes green. Politically, they like to position themselves as having a monopoly on all things environmental (they don't). In recent years they've started to misrepresent themselves to the public by saying they're in government. They're not in government and never have been. That makes them shameless liars too. 

Before I get to what can be done about the Greens, a little primer on how NZ's Mixed Member Proportional system or MMP works in effect. 

When NZ adopted its electoral system in the mid 1990's it was believed it would solve the recurring problem of minority governments. It didn't do that at all and minority governments became the norm just as they had before. But MMP turned out to be worse than its first-past-the-post predecessor. That's because any party making the 5% threshold could hold the whip hand. A party with tiny support got to dictate the direction of the country. This condition was particularly evident when in 2017, Labour and tiny NZ First formed a minority government that had a smaller proportion of the popular vote than the opposition National party. Labour and NZ First got to govern through the Greens offering their confidence and supply vote in the House of Representatives. What a shambles.

But wait, things are looking up. The Greens are now vulnerable. They're still in opposition but have an understanding with the ruling Labour government. This gives them a couple of ministerial positions outside cabinet, so long as they don't criticise. They're muzzled. Silenced but not in government. Neither Arthur nor Martha. 

The Greens won't see any benefit. Labour will claim credit for anything positive, while Greens won't be able to let rip as any opposition party is expected to do. They'll come across as neutered. Time then to take action against them.

I can imagine people thinking, that's not very nice. Well no, it isn't but that's the way MMP works. It is a negative system, learn how to use it. Yes, a negative system. I'll give you a theoretical example to illustrate.

Let's say one major party has 30% support while another much smaller party has 6% going into an election. Both are safely in parliament because they make the 5% threshold. To be the government, the much larger party must get to at least 40% and then look for a coalition partner to get itself into a winnable position. Why not 50%? That's because of wasted votes which can be as much as 10% of all votes cast (these are votes for parties which fail to make 5% or which cannot win an electorate seat). 

So that 30% party works its butt off and manages to achieve 43%. They then need the 6% party to get itself into government. That 6% party has just sat there and done nothing but it gets rewarded. That's what makes MMP a negative system.

It gets worse. What should the 30% party do knowing its efforts will be coat-tailed by the much smaller party? It is actually more effective to drive that smaller party below the 5% threshold, making votes for it wasted. Then all this large party needs to form a government is find a party with a lone seat or two, with a small voter base. This in effect is what has happened, with the Maori party and ACT both performing this role.

To remind the reader, MMP is a negative system.

How to get rid of these communists, given they offer nothing, coat-tail others efforts and are enemies of civilisation. Three broad approaches appeal:

1. Organise a band of fifth columnists and have them join the Greens to wreck the party from within. Do this by having them promote every wackadoodle and extreme viewpoint the party comes up with. Help elect extremist elements within the Greens to high position within the party, and see the party turned off by the electorate and thus become unelectable. This is quite achievable as the party harbours these extremist elements in any case. It wouldn't be hard to fan the flames.

These fifth columnist elements should operate in semi-autonomous cells and have regular virtual meetings with external controllers to keep them on track with the primary goal, and to ensure these infiltrators do not become seduced by the party they've joined.

2. Separately, establish an alternative party for young people. While the Greens desperately try to attract new first time voters, they are actually a party established by boomers that reeks of privilege. The Greens are hypocrites, selling utopia to gullible people. Of course when these voters get older and enter the workforce, they soon learn that life is not the way the Greens see it and they soon change their support to a more mainstream party. This new party established by and run by young people would cut off the oxygen supply for the Greens.

However, this approach would be expensive to set up, and young voters are unreliable. Think about this then and how to ensure they wouldn't later merge with the Greens. 

3. Harness the conservative conservationist vote. Some within Greens stay within the party even though they're not communists. That's because they do not see a viable environmental alternative. These people realise that capitalism allows for growth, that simply taxing and throttling enterprise won't work in protecting the environment. These voters want markets to work within a framework that protects, not exploits nature. They're somewhat more pragmatic and realise mining, industry and agriculture is necessary to maintain standards of living. 

This approach is workable and could be successful. It'd work better if this new party could win an electorate seat. Boomers would be its core support, along with later generations, it would be able to fund itself and stay focused on its goal of crushing the Greens and replacing them with a better brand. In time, once the Greens are out they could reverse merger and take over the whole environmental ground politically, within a market economic framework.

My approach is part destruction, part construction. Social media marketing needs to be effective, and it has to be said that environment parties have not been good in this area, including the Greens. To be successful the game has got to be played harder and smarter.

What are your ideas?

Snob's Guide to New Zealand Making Comeback

 My book on navigating around New Zealand society is undergoing a resurgence. When first released it was always top 100 on Amazon's Australian and Oceanian Politics category in both the physical and Kindle format. As a Kindle read it also rated highly within travel guides, a subject it does also address. But then it fell away, still selling but not enough to push it back into the limelight.

Recently readers have started borrowing the book from the Kindle Lending Library, which is new for me as in the past people bought the book. I know how much of the book gets read this way as I'm paid by the page through the Kindle Lending Library. My last two books get read completely when borrowed which I'm told is quite rare. Books are generally not read properly, readers skip pages, more than 20% of each book can be skipped through in fact. These readers later claim to have finished the book, when they haven't done that at all. So it's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated or at least hold the reader.

Why the comeback for Snob's Guide to New Zealand? I think the answer is twofold, people in the US are unhappy with the way things are headed there and maybe looking to escape. The other is controversy surrounding NZ's election and the possibility of electoral interference there as well. Readers are interested to know how the NZ system works, and exactly how its electoral system is flawed.

You can read my book by following this link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J9XRCWK

It's an easy read, written in an accessible way, but it's not endless gush either, if you want to know exactly how NZ operates, this is your first port of call. You get the lowdown, need to know stuff.

New Zealand Politics: Getting Over That 5% Threshold

Over recent years I have had representatives of minor New Zealand political parties approach me for advice about how to get over the party vote threshold of 5%. Without winning an electorate, a party without 5% of the party vote cannot enter parliament. At first glance this target doesn't sound insurmountable, to be safe it represents about 150,000 party votes. However, in reality it is a huge hurdle and I'm about to explain why that is.

My advice to these minor parties doesn't get far. I should be better at this, as maybe I could turn it into profit for myself, but I just don't have it in me to string them along. The conversation starts out with these hopefuls asking, what does it take to get that all-important 5%? My answer is brief; got $2 million to kick things off? Then $1 million each year thereafter until the election period starts and your spending is statutorily limited. 

There is silence around the room. Err. I never hear from them again.

Okay, so let's back this truck up and load the rig properly. I'm assuming this minor party has no sitting member of parliament able to use the machinery of the institution to help things along. No sweetheart deal with a major party gifting them a seat. And they're not a splinter group of an already established outfit, the way the Greens were when originally part of the Alliance back in the 1990's. 

We start out by gaining party members. The minimum is 500 financial members who are eligible to vote. That's not nearly enough. If we take a conservative approach and say that this party needs to be present in at least 60 electorates, with a minimum 50 members in each to cover for those dying, getting ill or busy in their life; we need a total membership of 3,000 at least.

These 3,000 members have to be supported by a paid party infrastructure, on deck 24/7 dealing with problems as they crop up. Their numbers don't have to be large but they'll be on the road a lot and they must be experienced and discreet. Thus, they'll be well paid.

What I've just described is very expensive. Obtaining those members presents a problem in itself. It costs money just to get members who in return may not have the money to donate back to cover set up costs. It's a bit like an initial public offering of shares to the public that falls over, the stock brokers taking a bath on the exercise.

But assuming these members are found and they're able to financially support operations through subscriptions and donations alone; how then is this party going to win those 150,000 votes from that small base of supporters? This is where it gets tricky, and almost every minor party has failed thus far.

The party must have access to media, both in the traditional and in new media such as YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Personally I recommend online newspapers and YouTube channels. A mixture of paid advertising and simple free promotion and mentions. Sounds good so far, right? Wrong, as there is another huge hurdle and it is bio-chemical, yeah, for real.

Advance NZ and New Conservatives both failed to understand this bio-chemical component of the political process. They thought that by engaging using social media, and let's face it they've been everywhere leading up to the 2020 General Election, they'd break through. Nope, didn't happen.

Why not? When in the polling booth voters revert to type. Bear in mind both Labour and National have been around a long time. They're cross-generational. The trauma of past events has been planted in voters genes, so when they vote, they're using instinct. Even though people may attend meetings of those minor parties, agree about everything and promise to vote for them, they do not. Why? Their genetic inheritance kicks in and they vote as their parents did and their grandparents and so on.

Breaking this cycle is where the money goes in bulk. This new party has to be about as popular as Keeping Up with the Kardashians to break through using social media, or just about own a major news outlet using traditional channels. 

And then lastly, timing. There has to be an appetite for this new brand. Without it that shelf space will disappear quickly as no-one will be buying. On top of that, the organisation has to be kept running smoothly with everyone on topic, every day. You can't force feed a message the electorate doesn't want and neither can you have the right message but it be disjointed or haphazard in application.

Sometimes I'm asked, of all minor parties, which has been most successful? They imagine I'll talk about the MMP era, but I go back farther and look at Social Credit's 20.7% in 1981 and the New Zealand Party backed by Bob Jones in 1984 which achieved 12.25%. The latter is important because that party effectively split the centre/right vote and ensured an easy victory for Labour. Both are interesting as they were successful through different means. Social Credit simply plugged away for decades, while the NZ Party was formed and became active quite swiftly.

So, anyone out there ready to talk? I know how things run, been around a long time.

Complete Failure of NZ's Electoral System

Back in 1996 New Zealand ditched its traditional first-past-the-post electoral system, and put in its place mixed-member proportional (MMP). There can be no doubt; in a year when NZ has its eighth MMP general election, the system has been proven an outstanding failure.

How did this happen? Why did this happen? The answer to that can be found in the way MMP is structured. MMP is based on the system they have in Germany. It was used there to prevent one party coming to power. You may recall Germany's troubled past, and the rise there of a genocidal regime which resulted in the holocaust and WWII. But NZ doesn't have that kind of background, it didn't need a system to prevent what happened in Germany happening in Aotearoa.

It gets worse, given NZ's small size, the type of electoral and regional diversity Germany has, doesn't exist in NZ. Oh, I hear you say, yes it does. Err, I reply, no it doesn't, one region doesn't go to war with another and NZ doesn't have principalities. You get the idea.

So NZ embraces MMP and things...don't change that much. NZ was assured the advantage of MMP was it would deliver majority governments (where the government commands 50% or more of the popular vote). It didn't happen, what happened is NZ still received minority governments, except many of its representatives had never, could never win an electorate seat. That's the reality. And politicians who lose their electorate seat, come back in off the party list, they get to keep their jobs. It's like the cat came back, it wouldn't stay away.

Not only that, but voters never get what they voted for. The election is more like a beauty contest, you vote for whoever takes your fancy and trust them to deliver something in coalition negotiations. And what you do receive is likely to be nothing.

Then in 2017 things turned worse. The coalition between Labour and NZ First actually had fewer votes than the Opposition. Incredible but true, the coalition is propped up by the Greens, who get a pay-off in the form of ministerial positions, but avoid accountability by actually being in the government with their feet under the Cabinet table (putting a bob each way in effect).

Now the latest polling has the Greens on the precipice, just 20,000 votes away from failing to make the 5% threshold as they cannot win an electorate seat. NZ First are polling well under the 5% and they may fail to get a seat (they also have none at present). NZ has in a very short space of time, found itself right back where it was with first-past-the-post, in a close head-to-head contest, Labour vs National.

What may result, and is quite likely in fact, is one of the two will govern NZ alone, no need for a coalition agreement, and after receiving far fewer than 50% support. Where to after that? Over time I predict a splintering of political support after this period of consolidation.

To understand what I'm banging on about, consider the supermarket aisle and the soft drink selection (soda or pop for those in North America). In the early days selection may have been simple and purely price driven. That's where NZ is right now with MMP. Then as tastes change and competition heats up, new brands emerge to compete for shelf space. Now when you head down that aisle the consumer is barraged with choices. This is what I believe will happen under MMP in NZ after the price or value driven phase.

That final stage presents real dangers as we're not really talking about consumer choice. We're talking democracy, freedom Westminster-style and it could be lost. Here's how this could happen, admittedly this is more speculative, there are far too many permutations to be accurate, but read on:

1. Phase one; multiple brands with at least a seat or 5% support are far more valuable. It makes sense to segment the market, by region and political belief; town vs country, christian vs atheist, environmentalists vs industrialists - ripping the country apart - you get the idea.

2. Phase two; fifth columnists are more valuable than consensus builders. Wreckers trump builders. Reverse mergers can occur whereby party faithful from one party join the enemy and wreck the other party from within. (There is no law in NZ saying an individual cannot belong to more than one party, although most parties have their own rules preventing it. It's hard to stop spies, and in time will become impossible).

3. Phase three; secret coalition deals end up with the elite running everything. Voters will not know if a secret deal exists or not. Voters will choose a brand to their taste, but later find that party is loyal to another party altogether. Imagine buying cherry Coke only to find it turned into classic Coke. This is a distinct possibility in this MMP environment.

It's all very undemocratic and I predict it will spell the end of NZ. It will pull itself apart, critical infrastructure will be ignored in order to chase the latest fad, defence will be ignored as it offers no immediate pay-off. In the end NZ will be annexed by Australia as it can't afford to have such a weak southern neighbour.

And how soon will this happen. Originally I thought this would be in the lifetime of my grandchildren. But things are happening so fast now, I think it may be in my lifetime. Not that long then.

MMP and the Failure of Smaller Political Parties

New Zealand's mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system has been around since 1996. It was meant to be fairer than its predecessor first-past-the-post system where a one vote majority means the winner takes the prize. It turns out nothing much changed, the two main parties, Labour and National have dominated since the Second World War and continued to do so under MMP.

It wasn't meant to be like that under MMP. New Zealanders were promised a plethora of parties vibrantly competing to secure the all-important party vote along with regional candidates contesting local issues for local people in local electorates. Everyone would get two votes when previously they had only one. Can you hear the cheers spontaneously erupting at this good news? 

Except the promises were empty and the people were duped. MMP ushered in an era of even more power for ruling elites. Local people got shafted, and their local issues were totally forgotten unless they happened to be in Auckland, in which case they became sacrosanct must-do's.

What went wrong and why have all attempts to break the Labour-National duopoly failed? There are four key areas to consider:

1. It's about MMP

Check the name again; mixed-member-proportional. It's not only about members and neither is it only about proportionality. All wannabe smaller parties forget this and go hell for leather at either trying to win seats, or building their party vote. To grow into a large third party they must be able to win and hold electorate seats AND hold their party vote across the country. Failure to do both means they wither on the vine and expire.

Examples of failure include; NZ First in 1996, they took all Maori electorates as well as Tauranga which was held by its leader Winston Peters. In total they secured 17 seats. Their failure, they could not hold the Maori seats. Then we have the Maori party which despite winning many Maori electorate seats, could not pick up enough party votes to make an impression beyond that.

2. The Media

Smaller parties struggle to get positive media coverage. If they are in the media then it's likely to be with some kind of spin attached. An example of this is the constant reference to Green list member of parliament, Golriz Ghahraman as an Iranian refugee. Or ACT's sole MP and leader David Seymour being portrayed as a simpleton (for those that don't know - he has a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical and Electronic) and a BA (Philosophy) from the University of Auckland).

Any smaller party has to be able to infiltrate across the spectrum of news cycles - see 1 above.

3. Political Appointments and Alliances

Labour and National use their connections to maximum effect. National push their connections with farming, business and certain professions such as law and accounting. When in government they appoint their own people to groups and receive reward in favourable decisions and the corresponding coverage. Meanwhile Labour do the same thing, they have established union connections and they have the nurses, teachers and social workers in their hip pockets. 

In this power play smaller parties cannot compete, in effect they're getting squeezed at both ends.

4. Government Departments and Flow of Information

Smaller parties work in a vacuum, they're starved of information and then find themselves walking into ambushes all the time. An example of this is the leaking of the superannuation details of NZ First leader Winston Peters.

***********************

To get beyond small and to become a contender, a political party must bridge the gap between it and the two main parties. It must do this by winning at least 3 electoral seats and more than 10% of the popular vote, and then hold that position or increase it to become established. At that level it can no longer be ignored at the national level and at the local level it would have the reach to also influence voters on the ground. What we are talking about here is economies of scale. Has any smaller party done this? Since the end of the Second World War, only Social Credit came close during the late 70's and early 80's. They held two electorates during this time and their popular support rose to a high of 20% at the 1981 general election. So close and yet so far and that wasn't under MMP, so it can be done, it just requires clever use of resources and effective candidate selection.

Heartland Party

I have written before about the need for New Zealand to have a strong political party promoting regional interests. Now is the time to form such a party.

Why right now? We have an almost impossible situation; the leader of NZ First went to Turkey in his capacity as Foreign Minister, and when there at a critical time, he fell asleep. This is the state of government in New Zealand - asleep.

Then we have the Greens with their ultra left-wing agenda, refusing to be in coalition with the government but wanting all the baubles and bangles nonetheless. It's outrageous.

There have been attempts to get parties off the ground, one most recent that comes to mind is the Conservatives which was largely backed by Colin Craig. It didn't work, face it, NZ does not vote for conservatives, the country is centre/left and will remain so.

Recently we have Vernon Tava and his version of the Greens. Problem with that, it is essentially a single issue party with a claim to be less left than Greens. It'll likely fail. There is the possibility that the whole exercise is an attempt by the Greens themselves to head off anyone looking to occupy their ground (National's Blue Greens setting up separately for instance), who knows.

Where is the potential? Think about this; there are 5 million people in New Zealand, 3.5 million of them outside Auckland. A regional party would be the voice of those 3.5 million people. That's a voter base that could rock.

I'm prepared to join such a party, but what does it need to be successful? By my estimate, at least 2,000 members. Yes, 500 are needed to register but that isn't enough. I arrive at my figure by looking at the 71 seats in NZ right now and figuring how each electorate could function as campaign entities. That means at least 28 people in each being active. 2,000 members in total.

Is this a pipe-dream? Possibly, but something has to be done or NZ is going to sink. Call me or contact me using the contact form on this page if you think you're up to it and want to make a difference.

MMP Not Working

There have been recent polls which show a trend back to the two horse race of National and Labour. The two previously dominated the electoral landscape under first-past-the-post in New Zealand. I am not sure how long this trend will continue exactly, but it will end and then I predict a splintering or segmentation of the electorate. That's because the influence of smaller parties is more powerful, meaning a vote for a smaller party is worth more. A lot more, so long as they can win an electoral seat or get over the 5% threshold.

I talk about the failings of the NZ Government and the electoral system in my book Snob's Guide to New Zealand: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1727804147. It's available on Kindle and in paperback from Amazon.

We are also witnessing the development of an unchallengeable political class which rules permanently. National are a good example of this, their leadership team seem to have been around forever. Labour are not as bad but they still have the likes of Damien O'Connor who seems to not know how to get a real job.

The reason the same faces keep popping up is due to the way MMP works. The party decides their own rate of renewal by selecting people for their party lists. Those in the know get preferential treatment, but often those receiving top spots are the very ones with no new ideas and who should be demoted. In a first-past-the-post system even a prime minister can be removed by challenging them and beating them in their own seat. This cannot happen with MMP as the prime minister would be back in parliament as they're always number one on their party list.

At the moment NZ has the worst of all worlds; the same old two party set-up has emerged, and the ruling class decide who will be the member of parliament, voters no longer get a direct say in their selection.

Jamie-Lee Ross Tape

What we learn from Jamie-Lee Ross tape.

1. $100,000 in Botany A/C
2. Younger Zhang in candidates' college
3. 1 Chinese and 1 Filipino vs 2 Chinese or 2 Indian on list 

Inference: List seats are for sale

Conclusion: corrupt and flawed MMP system.

Read where this is headed:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J9XRCWK

Snob's Guide: MMP Deeply Flawed

New Zealand's Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) electoral system is deeply flawed and Snob's Guide to New Zealand explains how and why.

The chapter, Government and Electoral System explains succinctly and accurately exactly where NZ is headed. It's a must read for anyone interested in the reality of MMP and why it is so inferior to a first-past-the-post system.

How serious is the problem? Very serious and I'm not even slightly exaggerating.

Here is the link to the Paperback on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1727804147

Snob's Guide on Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J9XRCWK

MMP Reforms

How about the following as an idea for how to reform MMP in New Zealand.

Have a second round runoff between the two top parties if one of them fails to get over 50% of the vote at the first attempt. The winner in the second round would be awarded additional seats to ensure they could govern alone.

In this scenario, the minor parties still get seats in parliament but they're not able to make unreasonable demands of their much larger political rivals.

MMP to Deliver Tyranny in New Zealand

That's right, following on from why Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) representation is not working and the problem of the tail wagging the dog, I should mention the obvious flaw with MMP as it relates to New Zealand. The problem is it will eventually lead to an effective dictatorship.

Okay, sobering thought I know, but here's how it will happen. Over time a plethora of divided interests will develop. That's because any party that manages to get 5% of the party vote gets influence far beyond its level of support without even winning an electorate seat. The incentive is to split and go after a smaller share with more power attached. The system is designed to deliver this outcome. It wasn't done intentionally but them's the breaks. Stupidity has no bounds.

First Past the Post (FPP) differs in that it works the opposite way to MMP. FPP starts out with many and varied parties, but over time that boils down to straight head-to-head contests. In NZ that became National against Labour from 1936 after creation of the National party.

The trend with MMP has seen clustering of interest groups since inception in the mid 1990's. Examples are the Alliance with Labour, and ACT party with National. In time the Alliance dwindled after starting to fall apart, while ACT lost steam. The Maori party rose and fell, the same with United Future, leaving only NZ First and the Greens as minor players.

Superficially it appears we are back where things started. Minority governments still occur frequently, and the two parties that dominated FPP from 1936, still dominate under MMP. For now that would be correct, it seems little has changed but it is a mistake to think like that as the landscape has changed. If you're walking around on Mars it may look like the Moon but it isn't. Get the idea?

This is where it gets difficult. FPP started out as a collection of disparate interests in NZ and became a political duopoly over time. The opposite will happen with MMP, it has started out as a near political duopoly, then will split apart into numerous smaller elements. The final coup de gras will be accidental. By chance one party will manage to get over the 5% threshold and win all the list seats while the rest of the parties will fail to meet the threshold and gain no seats, their votes wasted, or they will have electorate seats only. Note - when this happens. I'm not even suggested an if, as it is a virtual certainty to happen, just when exactly I don't know.

When this happens the successful party will have 75% of the seats in parliament so long as they have about a third of the electorate seats as well. That means they can replace entrenched legislation, and entrench new laws. They can do things like remove the head of state. They could change the electoral cycle to 99 years, and entrench it. Do you see?

The reason this can happen is because NZ has a unicameral legislature. There is no senate. Therefore no safeguards. NZ has a deeply flawed electoral system and lacks the guts to be honest about it. Every election the country throws the dice. Eventually it's going to deliver a monstrously unjust scenario and all anyone can do is pray the dictator is benevolent.

[ Just a note: think about Coke. Does Coca-Cola just sell Coke? How does Coca-Cola get to number 1? They do so by selling all kinds of drinks, to different preferences. That's how MMP will play out in NZ over time. But it could end up with just one player holding the keys to the castle; except it'll be for all the marbles, not just shelf space in a supermarket. NZ has blundered badly and may lose its country as a result. It's that serious.]

Why MMP is not Working

I've been reminded of a classic example of why MMP does not work for New Zealand. The best example right now is the Labour/NZ First coalition government stopping future offshore oil and gas exploration just to keep the Greens happy. Why is this an issue? The Greens are not even in government, they refused that responsibility but still received ministerial portfolios in return for their support.

I have never before seen Labour decide to throw away workers jobs. High paid unionised workers at that as well. It's a slap in the face for all Etu union members, who will now have to pick up the tab through higher union dues now the high paid oil workers will be forced to leave the country. It's insane.

The numbers tell the story. The Greens received about 6% support at the 2017 general election. 88.5% votes that counted went the other way and you can bet your bottom dollar they didn't vote to dump oil and gas. It's a classic tail wagging the dog situation. Look, okay, Greens get jobs for themselves and that's great, but the way I see 6% is they get to decide how many trash bins are sited along the Milford track. They should not be allowed to dictate the economic fortunes of the second largest industry in Taranaki.  

Polls: National or Labour in Front?

There are conflicting poll results leading up to this years general election in New Zealand. TV1 has Labour in front while TV3 say National has extended its lead in front. They can't both be right. To find what the problem is I'd suggest looking at the sample sizes and methodology behind each poll. My guess is that TV1 is biased toward the large metropolitan areas while TV3 is biased toward the regions. Considering there are far more people living in cities, I'd pay more attention to the TV1 poll results.

Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.

My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.

New Zealand Environment and MMP

New Zealand has a major flaw with its economy and that is it has an anaemic secondary manufacturing sector. NZ does make some things, but not enough of its national income derives from secondary industry. This has a major impact on the environment. To maintain its position as a fully developed OECD economy NZ finds itself having to do two things in the absence of manufacturing; it must flog the land to exhaustion and pollute the rivers.

The intensification of agriculture has got to the breaking point. You will find commentators saying the answer is the service sector and Kiwis doing things smarter. Yes, fine, but NZ is small and isolated, it's hard to get noticed. Its all very well trying to be the next Microsoft or Google but how realistic is that? Not very realistic is my reply, and NZ does not have really big global scale service sectors and I'm thinking banking and insurance. NZ relies on overseas funds from banking and overseas owned insurance companies.

For little NZ, the answer is to extract mineral ores and transform them into metals. Then take those metals and make products from them. Then sell those products worldwide. And if feasible, make those same products in other countries with the design aspect handled in Kiwiland. You may think of Toyota when I say this but I'm thinking Scania. Scania are Swedish heavy trucks and made in factories around the world. But Sweden only has a population of 9 and a bit million. Less than twice the size of NZ. And they have Volvo construction equipment to boot, and on and on. NZ should try to emulate their example.

Will this happen with the current political set-up? Never. The German style of Mixed-member Proportional (MMP) voting introduced in the mid 1990's ensures NZ is stuck with the way it is. The country has professional naysayers in the Greens, refusing to lead or take any responsibility, hogging positions that could be occupied by more able parliamentarians. And contrary to what NZ was promised, the country has rarely had majority governments, instead being led by minority governments hanging on by pleasing the myopic middle ground in order to survive in office. NZ has ended up with the worst of all worlds.

And it will get worse. The day could come where MMP delivers tyranny. One example is where a party receives, say, 60% of the vote but all others fail to get to the 5% threshold. This means all Parliamentary seats would go to the one party making the threshold (in theory but with some seats being won without many party votes, there would be one hell of an overhang in that Parliament). Or how about the ultimate minority party, say one with 35% but the rest unable to garner much more than 10% each, with a large number of votes wasted on parties not making the 5% threshold; meaning the government would rule a country where the overwhelming majority had not voted for it. Incredible, it could actually happen. Who were the fools that foisted this system on the NZ people.

Tail Wagging the Dog Law

The problem with MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), the voting system currently used by New Zealand, is parties with a smaller proportion of the vote have their power magnified. That's because the larger parties need them in coalition in order to form a government. I call this the tail wagging the dog.

My solution: scrap the current five percent threshold but all parties receiving less than 11% of the vote achieve observer status only. They can participate in select committees, debates, individually be appointed as Minister, but cannot vote in the House of Representatives.

This would have the effect of allowing the majority to rule. By majority I mean the party with the most votes, in particular most votes amongst all those parties receiving the bulk of electoral support.

The exception would be if any member of parliament had been directly elected to an electorate seat. But then only those members so elected could vote. If their party received less than 11%, then list members could not vote. This would give Maori representatives more say, as they tend to win Maori seats but do not get widespread support across the country as a whole.

The rationale behind my thinking is that MMP has failed to deliver the solution to the problem it was intended to address. That was that New Zealand was always led by a minority government. In a first past the post type system, the winner with a one vote majority takes the election even though the combined votes of all the opponents may total more than the total of votes for the winner.

Instead what happened is New Zealand is still led by minority governments, that is, governments that receive less than 50% of the vote. This occurs because there are wasted votes, that is votes cast for parties that do not get over the five percent threshold; those votes are effectively thrown away (the votes are redistributed so that all seats are taken up, but the point I'm making is the voter's choice is not exercised in the way the individual voter intended).

So a party with 45% of the vote, along with a motley crew of small-timers, the total vote for which is still less than 50%, governs. And here's the rub, those small parties get a much greater say than is appropriate for their small stature. For instance they routinely receive ministerial portfolios. They are bribed in other words.

And here's where NZ is heading: imagine in the future, a situation with Labour sitting on 25% of the vote, National 20%; but four far right and assorted environmental fringe parties, each with 10%, forming a coalition to govern with 40% collectively (the balance being discarded as cast for parties that don't make the cut). The ultimate tail wag.  Unless the die-hard enemies, Labour and National, formed a grand coalition (hard to imagine that one), then NZ would be governed by an unstable brew.

What New Zealand did in introducing MMP was to put the country at risk of this type of instability or injustice; where the two largest voter blocs representing the simple majority could be ignored.

My solution allows for inclusiveness but with limits, and acknowledges that the parties receiving the largest voter support must be the ones to make the decisions. What do you think? You are welcome to discuss this over at the forum

http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php

2016 Year of Upsets

What next? Will 2017 be anything like 2016?

Whether talking sports or politics, 2016 saw one upset after another. From Leicester City winning the English Premier League through to the Cubs winning the World Series. Brexit and then Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton. Any one of these things in a normal year and we'd be surprised but they all came at once, plus more. Make up your own list, it's been an exceptional year.

But in little old New Zealand while it may wish it, the type of electoral system the country now uses will almost certainly guarantee the same old tired faces stick around. New Zealand adopted German-style MMP in the mid 1990's. It was meant to build consensus government, where parties would form coalitions and work together. NZ was told it would be a stable form of government. Out with the old, where first past the post often led to the government receiving fewer popular votes than the combined opposition.

How has it panned out for little New Zealand? Minority governments are still not uncommon and it receives the worst of all worlds. Politicians who lose their seat now get back into Parliament off their party list. You can't get rid of them. This system may have been appropriate for Germany, where extreme left and right has held sway, but middle of the road New Zealand gets stuck with aged mediocrity that seem to be wedded to the job. Voters are left trusting the parties to refresh their party lists.

Then you have parties like the Greens who are professional naysayers and cannot win a seat. They get enough party votes to have representatives in Parliament, all coming in off the party list. They offer nothing constructive.

What New Zealand ends up with is indecision or weak-kneed legislation like the anti-smacking law. NZ was promised no parent who smacked their child would be criminalised, but that's exactly what has happened. It's outrageous.

With this loose limbed, liberal, middle ground seeking, never face issues head on approach, NZ still continues to slide. Renewal at the top isn't possible, and that's because of MMP.

****

Description of MMP: http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system